Hi Peter,
> I still think an underlining request should be considered for groff,
Agreed, but it should offer strike-through too. And both u̲n̲d̲e̲r̲l̲i̲n̲e̲ and
s̶t̶r̶i̶k̶e̶-t̵h̵r̵o̵u̵g̵h̵ should allow double variations, and probably triple;
double-underline is used to indicate small caps as sin
- Original Nachricht
Von: Peter Schaffter
An: groff@gnu.org
Datum: 08.07.2014 05:26
Betreff: Re: [Groff] underlining
> > At least in ms macros, the ".UL" will underline whatever it is given
> > as an argument; but this does not live well with line-breaks. So a
> > macro which
> There is no requirement, but doesn't it make sense to put it in
> an environment? As with pagination--if you have font or size
> changes in the text it is comparable to .decorate and you do
> not want to have these font changes to apply on the pagination.
Agree. It should be treated the same
- Original Nachricht
Von: Deri James
An: groff@gnu.org
Datum: 08.07.2014 18:12
Betreff: Re: [Groff] {Groff] underlining
> One wrinkle with this approach is when traps are invoked, if a particular
> decoration is in
> effect when a trap is sprung, it is unlikely the decoration
On Tue 08 Jul 2014 09:10:05 Doug McIlroy wrote:
> As has been pointed out, underlining by macro is at best inconvenient
> in filled text. Thus it was proposed that underline, and perhaps
> strike-through might be a groff primitive like .bd. All these capabilities
> may be understood as ways to deco
- Original Nachricht
Von: Doug McIlroy
An: groff@gnu.org
Datum: 08.07.2014 15:10
Betreff: Re: [Groff] {Groff] underlining
> Maybe we need a more general facility, in terms of which a whole
> array of effects can be defined. One possibility is a primitive,
> say .decorate m, wh
As has been pointed out, underlining by macro is at best inconvenient
in filled text. Thus it was proposed that underline, and perhaps
strike-through might be a groff primitive like .bd. All these capabilities
may be understood as ways to decorate individual characters.
There are other
such thing
> 2) A long time ago, Werner Lemberg wrote an ul.tmac and publisheed
> it only in this mailing list. But I could not find this tmac file
> somewhere else.
It's here:
http://groff.ffii.org/groff/contrib/macros/
> In nroff (ttyt/latin1 mode), italic is always printed
> as underlined - so .ul w
> The .ul macro dates back to nroff which was aimed at impact printers and
> where
> underlining was (almost) the only option and the intention was to replace
> manual typing. My first use of nroff was on daisy wheel printers; we were
> grateful for .ul .
Yes, that is true. But when Joe Ossanna
> ... Would be a good thing but has to have a new name (other than .ul).
> Preferable with more than two characters.
The .ul macro dates back to nroff which was aimed at impact printers and where
underlining was (almost) the only option and the intention was to replace
manual typing. My first use
Hi Steve,
> But as far as I can tell, PostScript fonts have some sort of built-in
> ability for underlining that other layout systems seem to be able to
> implement. Do these two lines from Utopia-Regular have anything to do
> with it?:
> /UnderlinePosition -100 def
> /UnderlineThickne
11 matches
Mail list logo
